Why Amy Coney Barrett instead of Barbara Lagoa?
Aside from a slight difference in age, why didn't Trump select Barbara Lagoa? Barrett certainly has the qualifications, but she also brings out the nutcases who view her religious beliefs as being fringe. Lagoa could have actually brought election day votes that. What am I missing?
Why Amy Coney Barrett instead of Barbara Lagoa?
I'm guessing because Barrett's a known quantity. Besides being highly qualified, she's recently been through the confirmation process once, and so it's very unlikely anything "new" can be dug up to be used against her. It leaves the Democrats nothing to grill her on except her religion (again) - and that's not a good optic for the Dems so close to an election, when it's all about how many undecideds you can sway to your party. Would they press her so hard on her religion if she were Muslim?
I hope we see the Democrats make asses of themselves at her confirmation hearing - frothing at the mouth, voices rising to a siren wail, neck veins bursting and bullsh*t flowing like lava from Mount Vesuvius.
All for naught - if the Senate has enough Republican votes to confirm. Hold my beer and watch this - it's gonna be good.
I hope we see the Democrats make asses of themselves at her confirmation hearing - frothing at the mouth, voices rising to a siren wail, neck veins bursting and bullsh*t flowing like lava from Mount Vesuvius.
All for naught - if the Senate has enough Republican votes to confirm. Hold my beer and watch this - it's gonna be good.
I say give the dems 24-48 to throw whatever they want at her. Shut it down and get her confirmed.
Then watch the idiots scream there heads off.
Ill bet that the democrats suicide line will be hiring with the flood of phone calls they will be getting
Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
Then watch the idiots scream there heads off.
Ill bet that the democrats suicide line will be hiring with the flood of phone calls they will be getting
Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
-
dammitgriff
- Posts: 928
- Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2018 11:06 am
It is illegal to discriminate against someone on the basis of their religion. If the D’s bring it up, they are technically committing a federal crime. Not that they care at all about the law, I know...
R/Griff
R/Griff
-
weaselfire
- Posts: 105
- Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2018 2:21 pm
Because they can get Coney Barrett confirmed now, might not be able to after election. But they may still get Lagoa confirmed with a loss of one or two senators in the election.
Jeff
Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk
Jeff
Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk
-
photohause
- Posts: 1189
- Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2018 5:11 pm
https://www.reviewjournal.com/opinion/o ... n-2127888/
VICTOR JOECKS: By their own standards, Democrats’ objections to Barrett or Lagoa is a ‘war on women’
Amy Coney Barrett, left, and Barbara Lagoa (AP/File)Amy Coney Barrett, left, and Barbara Lagoa (AP/File)
By Victor Joecks Las Vegas Review-Journal
September 22, 2020 - 9:00 pm
Don't miss the big stories. Like us on Facebook.
Democrats are lining up to oppose putting a woman on the U.S. Supreme Court. If the roles were reversed, you’d be hearing cries of sexism.
President Donald Trump has said he’ll nominate a woman to replace the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. The current favorite is Amy Coney Barrett, a judge on the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Barrett would be an impressive candidate. She once clerked for Justice Antonin Scalia and taught for 15 years at Notre Dame Law School before joining the bench. She’s the mother of seven children, including two adopted from Haiti, and a practicing Catholic.
Barbara Lagoa, the other leading candidate, is no less impressive. She’s the daughter of Cuban exiles and sits on the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. She served on the Florida Supreme Court. Before that she worked pro bono to keep Elián Gonzalez in the United States. She’s Catholic and a mother of three.
For decades, Democrats have positioned themselves as the pro-woman party. In 2012, they accused Republicans and then-presidential nominee Mitt Romney of waging a “war on women.” Sticking scissors into the skulls of preborn babies has been repackaged as “women’s health care.” RBG herself was a feminist icon. Nevada Democrats have bragged frequently that the state Legislature is majority female.
If Democrats were serious about being pro-women, they’d be thrilled to vote for one of these intelligent, successful women. Both judges have achieved success both professionally and personally. You could even argue that Ginsburg herself helped pave the way for their legal careers.
Yet, Democrats are already opposing putting a woman on the Supreme Court.
“Let me be clear: The voters should pick a president, and that president should select a successor to Justice Ginsburg,” Joe Biden said Friday.
Given his mental state, Biden may not realize it, but that’s exactly what’s going to happen. Voters picked Trump as president. Trump is selecting Ginsburg’s successor. There’s been flip-flopping on both sides over whether a president should appoint a justice during an election year. This is different from 2016, though, because the same party controls the presidency and Senate.
Speaker Nancy Pelosi went even further in her opposition. She hinted Democrats might use impeachment as a tool to tie up the Senate calendar. That would be a Hail Mary effort. For daring to add a woman to the Supreme Court, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez said congressional Republicans “are ruthless.”
Why are these Democrats so afraid of a powerful woman?
Alternatively, identity politics — one of the left’s favorite weapons to use against conservatives — is shallow and vacuous. Democrats oppose Trump’s nominee, not because of her gender, but because of her constitutional philosophy.
For decades, Democrats have viewed the court as a super-legislature. The Supreme Court has given them victories — such as abortion and gay marriage — the electorate wasn’t willing to provide at the time. The nomination of either Barrett or Lagoa threatens that. Both have demonstrated a belief that a judge’s job is to apply the law, not create it.
But until Democrats repudiate identity politics, it’s fair to hold them to their own standard. Democrats are now engaged in a “war on women.”
Victor Joecks’ column appears in the Opinion section each Sunday, Wednesday and Friday. Listen to him discuss his columns each Monday at 3 p.m. with Kevin Wall on AM 670 KMZQ Right Talk. Contact him at vjoecks@reviewjournal.com or 702-383-4698. Follow @victorjoecks on Twitter.
VICTOR JOECKS: By their own standards, Democrats’ objections to Barrett or Lagoa is a ‘war on women’
Amy Coney Barrett, left, and Barbara Lagoa (AP/File)Amy Coney Barrett, left, and Barbara Lagoa (AP/File)
By Victor Joecks Las Vegas Review-Journal
September 22, 2020 - 9:00 pm
Don't miss the big stories. Like us on Facebook.
Democrats are lining up to oppose putting a woman on the U.S. Supreme Court. If the roles were reversed, you’d be hearing cries of sexism.
President Donald Trump has said he’ll nominate a woman to replace the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. The current favorite is Amy Coney Barrett, a judge on the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Barrett would be an impressive candidate. She once clerked for Justice Antonin Scalia and taught for 15 years at Notre Dame Law School before joining the bench. She’s the mother of seven children, including two adopted from Haiti, and a practicing Catholic.
Barbara Lagoa, the other leading candidate, is no less impressive. She’s the daughter of Cuban exiles and sits on the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. She served on the Florida Supreme Court. Before that she worked pro bono to keep Elián Gonzalez in the United States. She’s Catholic and a mother of three.
For decades, Democrats have positioned themselves as the pro-woman party. In 2012, they accused Republicans and then-presidential nominee Mitt Romney of waging a “war on women.” Sticking scissors into the skulls of preborn babies has been repackaged as “women’s health care.” RBG herself was a feminist icon. Nevada Democrats have bragged frequently that the state Legislature is majority female.
If Democrats were serious about being pro-women, they’d be thrilled to vote for one of these intelligent, successful women. Both judges have achieved success both professionally and personally. You could even argue that Ginsburg herself helped pave the way for their legal careers.
Yet, Democrats are already opposing putting a woman on the Supreme Court.
“Let me be clear: The voters should pick a president, and that president should select a successor to Justice Ginsburg,” Joe Biden said Friday.
Given his mental state, Biden may not realize it, but that’s exactly what’s going to happen. Voters picked Trump as president. Trump is selecting Ginsburg’s successor. There’s been flip-flopping on both sides over whether a president should appoint a justice during an election year. This is different from 2016, though, because the same party controls the presidency and Senate.
Speaker Nancy Pelosi went even further in her opposition. She hinted Democrats might use impeachment as a tool to tie up the Senate calendar. That would be a Hail Mary effort. For daring to add a woman to the Supreme Court, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez said congressional Republicans “are ruthless.”
Why are these Democrats so afraid of a powerful woman?
Alternatively, identity politics — one of the left’s favorite weapons to use against conservatives — is shallow and vacuous. Democrats oppose Trump’s nominee, not because of her gender, but because of her constitutional philosophy.
For decades, Democrats have viewed the court as a super-legislature. The Supreme Court has given them victories — such as abortion and gay marriage — the electorate wasn’t willing to provide at the time. The nomination of either Barrett or Lagoa threatens that. Both have demonstrated a belief that a judge’s job is to apply the law, not create it.
But until Democrats repudiate identity politics, it’s fair to hold them to their own standard. Democrats are now engaged in a “war on women.”
Victor Joecks’ column appears in the Opinion section each Sunday, Wednesday and Friday. Listen to him discuss his columns each Monday at 3 p.m. with Kevin Wall on AM 670 KMZQ Right Talk. Contact him at vjoecks@reviewjournal.com or 702-383-4698. Follow @victorjoecks on Twitter.
“You didn’t finish school, did you?
Barbara Lagoa was the pro bono attorney for the Elian Gonzalez family in Miami. Legally she was on the wrong side of that. Remember that he didn't make to shore without the Coast Guard. Technically no "dry foot". Also that his father wanted him returned to Cuba. Parental rights. If the Clinton admin (Janet Reno) hadn't dragged their feet and played politics then it would have been a non event.